Table Of ContentPublic professionals and policy implementation:
conceptualizing and measuring three types of role
conflicts
Lars Tummers, Brenda Vermeeren, Bram Steijn and Victor Bekkers
This is the last version of the submitted manuscript, which is published in the international
academic journal ‘Public Management Review’:
Tummers, L.G., Vermeeren, B., Steijn, A.J. & Bekkers, V.J.J.M. (2012). Public
professionals and policy implementation: conceptualizing and measuring three types of
role conflicts. Public Management Review, 14, 2, 1041-1059.
Erasmus University Rotterdam
Dept. of Public Administration
Corresponding author: Lars Tummers
[email protected]
0
Abstract (max. 100 words, now 100 words)
Nowadays, public policies often focus on economic values, such as efficiency and
financial transparency. Public professionals often resist implementing such policies. We
analyse this using the concept of ‘role conflicts’. We use a novel approach by
conceptualizing and measuring role conflicts on the policy level, thereby linking policy
implementation and social psychology research. We construct and test scales for policy-
client, policy-professional and organizational-professional role conflicts. Using survey
data, we show that policy-professional and policy-client role conflicts negatively influence
the willingness of public professionals to implement policies. Concluding, we
conceptualized and measured three role conflicts that can occur during policy
implementation.
Key words
Role conflicts
Policy implementation
Public professionals
Resistance to change
Scale development
1
1 Introduction
Within the public administration literature, there is an intense debate concerning the
pressures that public professionals face when implementing public policies (Ackroyd et al.,
2007; De Ruyter et al., 2008; Freidson, 2001). It seems that many public professionals are
unwilling to implement public policies laid down by the government (Duyvendak et al.,
2006; Hebson et al., 2003). For instance, in the Netherlands, many insurance doctors
encountered substantial professional and moral concerns when asked to implement a new
policy focused on re-examining welfare clients. In fact, about 240 doctors urged a strike
against this new policy, and some decided to simply quit their job (Tummers et al., 2009).
Other examples from Canada show that public professionals often do not accept new
policies, and sometimes leave and start their own organizations (White, 1996).
When public professionals are unwilling to implement public policies, serious
consequences can result. First, it can significantly decrease the effectiveness of policy
implementation (Ewalt & Jennings, 2004; May & Winter, 2009). Second, the quality of
interactions between professionals and citizens may be affected, possibly influencing the
output legitimacy of government (Bekkers et al., 2007).
One important factor influencing the willingness to implement public policies seems
to be the conflicts that professionals experience during policy implementation. Many
contemporary policies focus strongly on economic values, such as efficiency and financial
transparency. This can be seen as an outcome of the influence of New Public
Management (NPM) (Hood, 1991). Public professionals may have difficulty in accepting
the changing trade-offs in values – due to the introduction of NPM reforms – which
become manifest when implementing a policy programme (Duyvendak et al., 2006;
Freidson, 2001).
These difficulties that professionals experience during the implementation of NPM
policies can be understood using the concept of role conflicts, as developed within the
2
social psychology literature (Kahn et al., 1964; Rizzo et al., 1970). When implementing a
policy, professionals face different demands from a range of role providers. Role conflicts
arise when professionals perceive these demands to be incompatible. Professionals
working at the front-line experience a number of role conflict types (Lipsky, 1980:46). For
example, a policy-client role conflict occurs when professionals perceive that the behavior
demanded by the policy they have to implement (such as following strict policy rules) is
incompatible with the behavior demanded by their clients (who want their situation to be
taken into account). It seems that the introduction of NPM policies has increased the
number of role conflicts as the values behind these policies (such as efficiency) can run
counter to professional values (such as equity) (Duyvendak et al., 2006; Freidson, 2001).
In this study, we aim to examine the influence of role conflicts on the willingness to
implement public policies. Our main research question is therefore:
What is the influence of the role conflicts encountered by public professionals during
policy implementation on their willingness to implement public policy?
To be able to answer this research question, we firstly conceptualize and measure the
role conflicts that occur during policy implementation, thereby combining insights from
both the policy implementation and the social psychology literatures. Numerous authors
have stressed the perverse effects of such conflicts (for example Honig, 2006;
Noordegraaf & Steijn, forthcoming 2011; Schneider, 1982; Tummers et al., 2009) using
qualitative case studies as the basis for their conclusions. In this study, a novel approach
is used by quantitatively studying role conflicts during policy implementation. Here, we use
a novel approach by conceptualizing and measuring role conflicts on the policy level,
thereby linking policy implementation and social psychology research. Scale development
techniques are used to conceptualize and measure these conflicts. This is valuable since,
3
as Harris (1991: 125) notes, ‘further theoretical explication and scale construction is
necessary for research to proceed in this area. Researchers are encouraged to develop
and use more specific subscales to measure role ambiguity and role conflict in future
studies.’
After conceptualizing and measuring role conflicts on the policy level, we will
examine their effects on the willingness of public professionals to implement public policy.
In previous research, role conflicts have been related to job-level indicators such as
stress, burnout, poor life satisfaction, difficulty in decision-making and poor job
performance (Jackson & Schuler, 1985; Netemeyer et al., 1990; Tubre & Collins, 2000).
However, in this research, we focus on the policy-level effects of role conflicts by looking
at professionals’ willingness to implement a policy.
This brings us to the outline of this article. In Section 2, we consider the theoretical
framework by relating literature on role conflicts and on policy implementation to examine
the role conflicts faced by public professionals during policy implementation. In Section 3,
our method for measuring role conflicts and testing the hypotheses are outlined. The
results are presented in Section 4. We conclude the article by discussing the contribution
this research makes to the policy implementation literature and the debate on
professionals in public service delivery.
2 Theoretical framework
2.1 Introducing role conflicts
Organizational roles and role conflicts have been studied for at least sixty years (Tubre &
Collins, 2000), starting with the work of key scholars such as Merton (1949) and Parsons
(1951). Further, social psychologists such as Kahn et al. (1964) and Rizzo et al. (1970)
have extensively studied role conflicts.
4
Examining the role conflict concept in work environments, Tubre & Collins (2000:
156) note that, ‘conceptually, a role is a pattern of behaviours perceived by an employee
as behaviours that are expected’. That is, employees often base their perceptions of the
duties and expectations associated with their chosen profession on the definition of jobs
and roles that others communicate to them (Kahn et al., 1964). A lack of compatibility
between multiple expectations can create conflict and tension. When people are
confronted with contradictory and competing role expectations, a situation described in
occupational stress research as a role conflict arises. More specifically, Katz and Kahn
(1978: 204) define a role conflict as ‘the simultaneous occurrence of two or more role
expectations such that compliance with one would make compliance with the other more
difficult.’
An extensive body of knowledge concerning role conflicts has been built up.
Research on role conflicts has been reviewed in three meta-analyses (Fisher & Gitelson,
1983; Jackson & Schuler, 1985; Tubre & Collins, 2000). In general, role conflicts have
been linked to a range of negative job attitudes and behaviours (Jackson & Schuler, 1985;
Netemeyer et al., 1990; Schaubroeck et al., 1998; Tubre & Collins, 2000). Nevertheless,
some more positive effects have been recorded. For instance, Lowenthal et al. (1975:110)
note that when individuals experience conflicting demands, this can increase opportunities
to develop a more distinct personality at later points in life.
2.2 Applying role-conflict ideas to policy-implementing public professionals
The degree and type of role conflicts that arise during policy implementation can depend
on the type of policy and the policy process. Wilson (2005) makes distinctions between
redistributive policy, protective and competitive policy, morality policy and distributive
policy. Within an NPM context, the government tries to enhance public performance by
introducing more businesslike practices within the public sector. In this respect, NPM
5
policies focus strongly on economic values, such as efficiency and client choice (Hood,
1991). This type of policy is often top-down (Hill & Hupe, 2009) in nature and often fails to
deliver tangible benefits to the regulated (Wilson, 2005). As noted in the introduction, such
policies can generate role conflicts for the implementing public professionals (see also
Duyvendak et al., 2006; Farrell & Morris, 2003; Lipsky, 1980; Smullen, forthcoming 2011;
Tummers et al., 2009).
Based on literature from the sociology of professions (especially Freidson, 2001)
and policy implementation streams (Duyvendak et al., 2006; Lipsky, 1980; Tummers et al.,
2009), we have identified three role conflicts which are considered especially important
when implementing public policies in such a situation: a policy-professional role conflict, a
policy-client role conflict and an organizational-professional role conflict.
Firstly, we would argue that a policy-professional conflict can occur. Policy
requirements are reflected in the policy contents, which are often laid down in formal rules
and regulations, such as the policy goals to be achieved. The role behaviour demanded
by these policy requirements can conflict with the professional values - the set of rules
one would follow if allowed to act professionally as a member of a professional
community. A policy-professional role conflict occurs when professionals tasked with
implementing a policy perceive the role requirements demanded by the policy contents to
be incongruent their professional attitudes, values and behaviour. This conflict can be
particularly pronounced if the policy is implemented in a top-down way, without consulting
the professionals (Hill & Hupe, 2009).
The second type considered relevant is the policy-client conflict. This type of
conflict occurs when professionals tasked with implementing a policy perceive the role
behaviour demanded by their clients to be incongruent with the role behaviour demanded
by the policy content. For a somewhat extreme example, consider police officers who
have to implement stricter law enforcement, such as zero-tolerance, policies. As Lipsky
6
(1980: 47) notes, these police officers ‘must enforce laws they did not make in
communities where demands for law enforcement vary with the laws and the various
strata of the population’. As a result, enforcing zero-tolerance, in line with the policy
content, can conflict strongly with the role behaviour demanded by clients, who want
police officers to take account of their specific circumstances.
Thirdly, we distinguish the organizational-professional conflict. An organizational-
professional role conflict occurs when a professional tasked with implementing a policy
perceives the role behaviour demanded by the organization regarding policy
implementation to be incongruent with his or her professional attitudes, values and
behaviour. Although this is related to the policy-professional role conflict, it is logically
independent as it looks at the way the organization implements the policy, not at the policy
content itself. In public organizations, managers are important actors in the
implementation of policies. There may be conflicts between the role behaviour demanded
by these managers, which for instance may stress efficiency and focusing on quantifiable
targets during policy implementation, and professional values and attitudes. A good
example is of an insurance physician implementing a new policy on re-examining welfare
clients. He stated that ‘there is clearly a culture of repression. Management does not
understand that doctors need time. Tensions arise when doctors want to work accurately
and managers tell them that they have to do fifteen re-examinations a week’ (cited in
Tummers et al., 2009: 701). However, the overall picture may well be more mixed - that
conflicts do occur, but only in limited ways. Many managers may well have values that are
not that dissimilar from the professionals working under them, for example because they
are, or used to be, frontline professionals themselves (Thomas & Davies, 2005).
7
2.3 Role conflicts and willingness to implement policy
Having conceptualized three types of role conflicts, we can now examine the possible
consequences of these role conflicts on professionals’ willingness to implement public
policy. Many scholars see the commitment of public professionals as a prerequisite for the
effective implementation of a public policy (Ewalt & Jennings, 2004; May & Winter, 2009;
Van Meter & Van Horn, 1975). Further, it has been fairly consistently claimed within the
field of change management that a crucial condition for success is that employees are
willing to implement an intended change (Judson, 1991; Lewin, 1951). According to
planned change theories, an absence of this willingness will result in a situation where top
management's intentions to instil a change will not be transformed into real change efforts
by lower echelons (Judson, 1991). According to the ‘emergent change’ school of thought,
unwillingness will impede the process of small, bottom-up modifications, such that these
will no longer accumulate and amplify (Weick, 2000). Alongside this, the notions of
working, shirking or sabotage, as discussed by Brehm and Gates (1997), are relevant in
this context. When public professionals are unwilling to implement the policy, ‘shirking’ or
‘sabotage’ are more likely to occur than ‘working’, and this is undesirable in terms of policy
performance.
Although some prominent policy implementation scholars have emphasized the
crucial role of front-line professionals being willing to implement the policy (Ewalt &
Jennings, 2004; May & Winter, 2009), a validated scale for measuring this has not been
developed. Therefore, we will draw on the change management literature, which has a
long history of examining willingness/resistance to changes (Judson, 1991; Lewin, 1951),
and use the concept of change willingness that has been validated by Metselaar (1997).
Change willingness is defined as 'a positive behavioural intention towards the
implementation of modifications in an organization's structure, or work and administrative
processes, resulting in efforts from the organization member's side to support or enhance
8
the change process' (Metselaar, 1997: 42). In this article, the change refers to the policy
that the professionals are required to implement.
We can now relate the willingness to implement a public policy with the three types
of role conflict discerned above. Kahn et al. (1964) argue that role conflicts result in stress
and anxiety on the part of organizational members. Hamner and Tosi (1974:479) note that
‘it appears that role ambiguity and role conflict result in undesirable consequences for
organization members.’ (see also Tubre & Collins, 2000:156). We therefore expect
professionals to prefer policies with less conflict to policies with greater role conflict, and
that this will make them reluctant to implement policies of the latter variety. For instance,
we expect professionals who experience a strong policy-client role conflict during policy
implementation to be reluctant to implement the policy (Lipsky, 1980). We therefore
hypothesize that:
H1: The more professionals experience a policy-professional conflict, the more unwilling
they will be to implement a policy.
H2: The more professionals experience a policy-client conflict, the more unwilling they will
be to implement a policy.
H3: The more professionals experience a organizational-professional conflict, the more
unwilling they will be to implement a policy.
Although we expect intense role conflicts to negatively influence willingness to implement
a policy, we do not expect all role conflicts to have the same magnitude of impact on the
willingness to implement. First, a role conflict involving the policy (policy-professional or
policy-client) could be more important than an organizational-professional conflict. This
idea follows from one of the main conclusions of the work by Brehm and Gates, who note
that policy preferences can be more important in influencing the attitudes and behaviour of
9
Description:that public professionals face when implementing public policies (Ackroyd et al., social psychology literature (Kahn et al., 1964; Rizzo et al., 1970).
